I agree with your statement. I also think there is not enough information to support removing the dam. The dam should not be removed until further research is conducted. Although I would like to see Hetch Hetchy restored to its former glory, it almost seems as if the damage has already been done and it may not be worth it to switch back. Unless other forms of compensation are planned in the absence of this dam, it should not be removed.

Although I recognize having access to large quantities of water is important, I disagree with your argument. You are correct when stating "water for agriculture doesn't exactly have to be as filtered as drinking water", but the quality of water for crops is still important. We need to be able to ensure the salinity of the water is low enough to be able to produce food. Moreover, agricultural runoff can lead to water quality issues, as seen by the algae bloom in Lake Eerie. This led to the people of Toledo, Ohio not having access to clean water. Although they could have turned on their facets and showers, the water coming out would have been toxic. This shows the issue was not water quantity, but rather water quality.

I agree that water quality is more important than water quantity. Although I do think conserving water is crucial, as this is a limited resource, I also believe it is more important to maintain a high standard of the quality of water. For example, the people of Toledo, Ohio had access to water, but it was deemed toxic due to the algae bloom in Lake Eerie. In this situation, the quantity of the water was not the issue, but rather its quality was problematic. Additionally, as can be seen by the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, the quality of water is vital. Since Flint was unknowingly switched to a more acidic water source, this wore away at the bio-film that had built up over time on the lead piping system. Therefore, lead started to seep into the water. With these cases in mind, I am proposing we should be concerned with the usability of our water resources.

While I understand where you are coming from, I still disagree. I do not think the entities that manage groundwater and surface water should be overseen by a larger government body. I feel this could potentially lead to conflicts within the organization. This is not to say conflict couldn't possibly arise if the two were separate, but it should be considered the person/people in charge of this overall management system could be persuaded by political motives to favor one of the sources over the other. It is important groundwater and surface water are treated with the same amount of care and respect since they are vital resources.

Groundwater and surface water should not be managed jointly. Although these two sources of water are not independent of one another, it is important to manage them separately. This is not to say it should be ignored that these two types of water are often connected, however this should not be taken into consideration when deciding they should be managed jointly. Groundwater and surface water need to be managed separately, so it is ensured they each receive the same amount of attention from their respective experts. The entities that oversee the management of these two types of water would still need to collaborate in order to protect them. Whether its groundwater or surface water, these two resources need to be managed effectively because water is too vital of a resource to be compromised.

While your statement about green technology and water conservation projects is true, this does not justify focusing more on humans when water planning. I'm sure no one would dispute that humans rely on water, but this is true for the environment too. Conserving water does not then mean more of it should be focused on human use when developing future water projects. It is important to ensure there is a balance between water for humans and the environment.

I believe the environment should receive equal emphasis as humans when it comes to water planning. For some reason, people tend to forget the environment is vital to the survival of the human race. If we continue to neglect our planet, future generations will struggle through life, and eventually, they could die off. Therefore, by giving the environment the same amount of attention in water planning, humans will still benefit from it. Moreover, people need to keep in mind that we share this planet with other forms of life (plants and animals). It would be unethical to destroy other species and habitats because humans feel they need more water. Although water conservation projects are being researched, funded, and developed, this does not excuse shifting the allocation of water to humans. The preservation of Earth is key to the survival of as many species, whether plant or animal, as possible, and this means making sure a balance of distributing this life sustaining liquid is established.

I disagree with your argument as you are using "slippery slope" fallacies. I would to like to address the claim of "When that day comes..." as it is built off of many assumptions. While SoCal is overpopulated, one could argue the entire planet is overpopulated, the state of California would not simply allow it to reach this almost apocalyptic point, especially since the state's government is made up of representatives from throughout the entire state. Also, the assumption of transporting water would lead to the consumption of other natural resources and "could lead to other crisis" is an exaggeration. This statement is built on the basis that no one is working on solutions for environmental issues, which is false.

I believe that NorCal does have an obligation to continue providing water to SoCal. NorCal cannot stop providing SoCal with water because this could have disastrous effects for the entire state of California. For example, if SoCal started to suffer from the lack of water, they would start to contribute a lot less to the state's economy, and therefore, NorCal would be negatively impacted too. Since California's economy plays a massive role in the United States, the country would suffer too. Moreover, SoCal's population is larger than that of NorCal, and NorCal has a significantly larger access to water, so these two parts of the state need to work together in order to thrive.

I disagree with your opinion on regulating NPS pollution. Issues should not simply be ignored because they are difficult and expensive. I agree that regulating point source pollution is also important and easier, but it is important to deal with multiple issues at once. Both forms of pollution are negatively impacting the environment, by worsening air and water quality, therefore they should be regulated.